Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Liberal drop in Ontario points to Conservative majority in new Léger poll

Yesterday, Léger Marketing released its Canada-wide poll on federal voting intentions. We don't often hear from Léger when it comes to polls conducted outside of Quebec, the last one having been released seven months ago. But this new poll points to something several polls have indicated recently: the Conservatives are straddling the line between a minority and a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

Compared to that last poll conducted in August 2010, the Conservatives have slipped only one point and now lead with 36%.

The Liberals have dropped five points and are down to 23% support, a shift that is well outside the standard sampling margin of error of these two Léger polls.

The New Democrats are up two points to 18%, while the Bloc Québécois and Greens are tied at 10% apiece.

A random sample of this size would normally have a sampling margin of error of +/- 2.1%, 19 times out of 20. Léger, however, uses an online panel. But it was apparently recruited randomly so it is difficult to classify.

It isn't the Conservative result that is good here. After all, 36% is less than what the party had in 2008 and support levels in every part of the country are generally where they were on election night. It's the weakness of the Liberals that boosts the value of this Tory result, as the Liberals are 13 points behind the Conservatives nationally and, more importantly, trail by 14 in Ontario.

There, the Conservatives are unchanged since August 2010 at 41%, but the Liberals have dropped seven points to only 27%. The New Democrats take advantage, and are up two points to 20%. The Greens are at 11% here.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives slip three points but still have things well in hand at 45%. The Liberals are up three to 22% but the NDP is down six to 13%, a disastrous result for them. They've yielded third place to the Greens, who jump six points to 17%.

In Alberta, the Conservatives lead with 56% (-4). The Liberals are down seven points to 13% while the NDP is unchanged at 11%. The Greens are ahead of the NDP here as well, with 12%.

The Conservatives and Liberals each drop two points in the Prairies to 46% and 21%, respectively. The NDP is down three to 20%.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have decreased eight points to 35%, but are still ahead of the Conservatives who are at 28% (+4) and the NDP at 24% (+4). Actually a good result for the NDP out east.

Léger polled Quebec in far greater detail, breaking things down as they usually do by language and region. In the province as a whole, the Bloc Québécois is up two points from the last poll conducted in Quebec in early February. They now lead with 41%. The NDP is up one point to 20%, while the Liberals and Conservatives are each down two points to 18% and 16%. That the NDP is now the top federalist party is remarkable.

The Bloc leads among francophones with 49%, up three points from February. The NDP is up one to 20%, while the Conservatives are steady at 15%. The Liberals have dropped three points to 13%, and appear not to be a factor in francophone Quebec.

Among non-francophones, however, the Liberals still lead with 41% (+5). The Conservatives are down five to 23% (bad news for Larry Smith), while the NDP is up one to 20%.

In the Montreal region, the Bloc has dropped two points to 35% but still leads, with the Liberals at 24% (+4), the NDP at 21% (+2), and the Conservatives steady at 15%.

In Quebec City, the Bloc has roared ahead with a seven point gain. They now lead with 36%. This echoes the recent Léger poll conducted in the Quebec City region, but doesn't show as large a lead as that poll did. The Conservatives are down nine big points to 25%, while the NDP is down two to 19%. Up five are the Liberals, at 16%.

Finally, outside of these two cities the Bloc dominates with 50% support, up seven points.

With the results of this poll only, ThreeHundredEight projects 29 seats for the Conservatives in British Columbia, 27 in Alberta, 22 in the Prairies, 61 in Ontario, eight in Quebec, and seven in Atlantic Canada for a total of 155. That is just barely enough to have a majority.

The Liberals win five seats in British Columbia, none in Alberta, two in the Prairies, 27 in Ontario, 11 in Quebec, and 19 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 65 - worse than the 2008 result.

The Bloc Québécois wins 53 seats in Quebec.

The New Democrats win two seats in British Columbia (that 13% kills them), one in Alberta, four in the Prairies, 18 in Ontario, three in Quebec, and six in Atlantic Canada for a total of 35 seats. In case you're wondering, that third Quebec seat is Hull-Aylmer.

Léger also asked respondents whether they think the opposition should vote against the budget and bring down the Conservative government. Surprisingly, 43% said that they should, while only 34% said that they shouldn't.

There are also a few questions about arena funding and satisfaction with the government, which I invite you to check out in the PDF. The Quebec provincial poll results will be dealt with in a separate post later this week.

More fuel for the fire, as it were. As occurred when Michael Ignatieff told Stephen Harper that his time was up back in 2009, the talk of an election has pushed Liberal numbers down. Recent controversies have yet to be fully recorded in polls, though Léger seems to suggest that they haven't taken hold - not yet, perhaps.

I tend to share the Liberal view that they have a good chance of improving their numbers once the campaign begins. Despite all his efforts, Ignatieff is still relatively unknown. Once he is on the television every day, presents a platform, and takes part in the debates (and I suspect he will do well), Canadians will then either reject or embrace him. At this point, I don't think they have done either just yet.

I agree with you on the Liberals doing better in the campaign. Ignatieff has the most to gain in the election, and lose too. Ignatieff and the Liberals did fairly well in early 2009 and over this summer. Harper's record is not perfect and his support in the east is volatile.

1. Every poll we see these days has at least one region where the results are so totally out of synch with all other polls that you have to wonder if it was some sort of bad sample. In this Leger poll, its the BC numbers which are absurd (in the past we have seen other anomalies in other polls like the Green party at 25% in Quebec in that notorious Strategic Counsel poll or the time Ekos had the NDP go from 17% to 45% in Atlantic Canada in one week!).

2. The Green/Other vote is a very high 13% in this poll. (NB: This is very much an English-canadian phenomenon since the Green/Other vote in Quebec is very low). I suspect that the actual percentage of people who vote for the Green party for some some independent or minor party candidate will be more like about 6%. Are these people really non-voters most of whom won't actually vote at all? If that is the case the national popular vote would go to CPC - 38%, Libs 25%, NDP 19% or are they mostly anti-Conservative voters (many of whom are Liberals who are unenthused by Ignatieff) who will drift back to the Liberals when Igantieff gets a dead-cat bounce and/or go NDP in which case the popular vote would be something like CPC 36%, Libs 27%, NDP 20%.

While I also have some concerns about the regional breakdowns outside PQ in this poll, I have to say it's showing some weakness in the Tories and the Libs hanging on -- compared to last week's AR offering --overall.Iggy's announcement yesterday of possible financial support for the Quebec arena complex was a smart move. I can't beleive Harper allowed Iggy to outflank him on this.Let's face it the only people that'll be pissed off enough by this news not to vote Liberal are in the three Prairie provinces. The Libs merely have to show they're willing to talk about a Winnipeg stadium and they'll win that province over. As far as the other two go, who cares. Ralph is safe. The upside will be a warm fuzzy feeling for the Libs in PQ. If Harper had moved first he'd be in the same spot. Let's be honest here, Alberta and Saskatchewan will vote CPC no matter what, so why would the Conservatives care if they're upset. Historically they've shown they don't.Now Iggy has another -- of many -- bats to hit Harper with during an eleciton campaign.

"Despite all his efforts, Ignatieff is still relatively unknown. Once he is on the television every day, presents a platform, and takes part in the debates (and I suspect he will do well)."

I'm not sure about that. To be fair, I think iggy is a pretty smart guy. But that's a trait he shares with some of Canadian politics' greatest losers (In recent memory, Stephane Dion, Joe Clark, John Tory). The question is, is he a good politician?

Unfortunately, nothing we've seen from Iggy so far suggests that he has that "je ne sais quoi" that distinguishes the successful politician from the also ran. Indeed, the fact that, even after 2 years as leader, his instincts are still questionable (the Quebec Arena announcement, initially backing up Trudeau the Younger's immigration comment) suggests that he still hasn't mastered the politician's craft (and, in his defense, why should he? He hasn't been involved in party politics anywhere near as long as his opponents or his predecessors).

And I'm not convinced that Iggy will be able to make effective use of the debates. In a one-to-one debate against Harper, maybe he'd wipe the floor with Harper (maybe, although Harper's no slouch), but modern debates are so crowded and stage-managed that the sort of decisive exchange we saw in the '84 election isn't going to be repeated. And there's no way that the Tories (or the NDP or the Greens or the Bloc) are going to let the Liberals have a one-on-one debate with the Tories.

To some degree, I agree with you that Ignatieff hasn't really had much of a chance for Canadians to get to know him. Because he was chosen as a leader in such an irregular manner (the party appears to have broken its own rules by not holding a convention), he didn't get that flurry of positive media attention with which to introduce himself to Canadians.

However, we can't ignore the historical data that the writ period reduces Liberal support, while raising Tory support. Election after election, we see about a 5-point swing toward the Conservatives while the candidates are out on the campaign trail.

Maybe Iggy gets his bump now, but maybe he missed his chance. It will certainly be interesting.

I am looking forward to the debates, though. I would expect Ignatieff to be quie good in a debate, and we've seen in previous elections (particularly 2006) how effective Stephen Harper is in a debate. The real question, I think, it whether Ignatieff can appaer both intelligent and likeable in a debate. Harper is pretty good at looking intelligent, but he also looks frustrated at having to explain himself. His debate with Paul Martin was like watching a headmaster lecture a disobedient child.

Ignatieff isn't particularly known for his charisma, but if he can out-charisma the joyless robot that is Stephen Harper, he might do quite well.

"Having tried and failed to find a way to stomp on this flaming bag of dog poop without getting their shoes soiled, the Tories left it burning on the doorstep only to watch Mr. Ignatieff put his foot right in it. They must be killing themselves laughing at Tory election HQ."

I just can't believe how badly Iggy has bungled things. My bold prediction... He will not do well in an election. He will get beat down like a clown.

Pinkobme: I guess we're going to have to disagree on the merits of the Quebec stadium scheme, but I don't see it having any positive benefits for the Liberals outside of Quebec. Everyone knows that no one's going to be building a new stadium in Winnipeg or regina or what have you, so it really is blatant pandering to Quebec.

I could see why the Tories might have done it, given that they have some strength out west (so could probably survive allegations of pandering) and have seats to lose (or gain) in the Quebec region, but I can't figure out why it makes any sense for the Liberals. It doesn't help them in Quebec (if anything, it'll help the Bloc win more seats around Quebec), it does nothing for them in English Canada (and could hurt them out west - not that they have much to lose). Moreover, it'll hurt them on both the left and the right by committing scarce public funds to subsidies stadiums for billionaires and their millionaire employees (I know Mulclair originally came out in favour of the arena, but he filled his support with caveats about not enriching billionaire sports owners - gee, who do you think owns hockey teams?).

Moreover, the concern for Iggy isn't just the perception that he's pandering to Quebec, but the perceptio that he's in cahoots with the Bloc. This won't help dispel that perception.

It is getting really close to refuting one of your basic views on politics: A CPC Majority needs to be won in Quebec.

With these numbers the CPC get a Majority with 8 seats in Quebec.

This is before Ignatieff made his support for the Quebec arena public. That will cost him a lot of votes in Ontario in the same manner as it was going to for Harper.

I firmly believe that when it become obvious that there is a better than a 50% chance of a Harper Majority , Quebec federalists will abandon the Liberals and elect more CPC so that they will have a voice at the table.

Even some BLOC supporters will wonder what leverage 52 BLOC MPs will provide under a Harper Majority and pick the local CPC candidate that will likely keep some of the pork coming to their ridings.

Quebec will be studyingthe reality of separation and the drop in the standard of living that goes with it.

They may be mollified by more power for the provinces and taking economic responsibility rather than counting on transfer payments.... but they have shown no appetite for getting their financial house in order despite Lucien Bouchard clarifying the issue.

Oh AJR79, thanks for the retort. I've been called worse than a crazy cat. Just playing devil's advocate to the Tory line. Speaking of the Tory line, nice of you to pull a quote from the strident right National Post. Surprise, surprise. The NP doesn't like Iggy.Harper's on his way to a majority. Iggy can't buy positive national media coverage. So he takes a shot.How's it gonna hurt. The polls get worse?Maybe that's what we need in this country. Liberals tank, CPC gains a solid majority and life goes on.We've been flirting with the devil for 5 years now, maybe it's time to go all the way.This is bass-akwards to what I want to say, but maybe this country should be taught a lesson about complacency. If negative ads buy our votes, we deserve the political venereal disease we contract.

Carl you're right of course. But don't you find it interesting Iggy makes that mistake and leading national columinists write ever so clever pieces on how he's stepped willingly into a burning pile of dog crap. And you know the guy's right. This'll be fodder for Iggy's political enemies for months.Meanwhile, the Harper government gets hit with in-and-out scheme allegations, legless veterans upset over how they're treated after they leave the armed forces, prorogation, early elections, and on and on and the media and public yawns. CPC polling results increase and life goes on.It's like I've always said, a government can't do anything wrong in eyes of the electorate until suddenly it can't do anything right. Then we dump the SOBs for another group of heros/SOBs.We'll see how long that takes for this turn. Another five years I suspect.

Ira,"However, we can't ignore the historical data that the writ period reduces Liberal support, while raising Tory support. Election after election, we see about a 5-point swing toward the Conservatives while the candidates are out on the campaign trail."

Historical results of campaign:1984- PCs have huge jump in polls after the debate1988- PCs get moderate boost1993- PCs melt down; Reform gets huge boost1997- Reform and PCs get moderate boost2000- Alliance decreases, PCs increase2004- Conservatives increase in support first two weeks, then drop to second in last two weeks2006- Conservatives steady first three weeks, take the lead in a big boost midway, then lose steam in the last week to drop to minority status2008- Conservatives support stays within margin of error the whole campaign.

I think a more consistent pattern in canadian elections is that which ever party is the incumbent party tends to lose ground during the campaign - and since the Liberals have usually been the incumbent party - they are the ones who usually go down. We are in uncharted territory to have the Tories as the incumbent and to have the Liberals at such a low level of support before the campaign begins. I tend to think that unless the NDP suddenly starts to gain major traction and gets well into the 20s - 23% is going to prove to be a floor for the Liberals not a ceiling!

Ignatieff has not once, in anything he's said, really seemed 'prime ministerial'. It occurs to me that that really affect his numbers, because one doens't look at him and see a future prime minister. But to his credit, he hasn't had much of a chance to look like a potential prime minister. I think there might be a chance that he takes his role as 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition' a bit too literally and in Commons raises opposition to everything the CPC does not because he thinks it will win partisan points but because he interprets that as his job and responsibility at the moment. Perhaps once the writs are dropped he'll have a chance to act as someone we can comfortably see in 24 Sussex and that will turn his numbers around. Alternately, behind a debate podium we'll still see the hectoring, posturing, low-on-ideas Ignatieff, and it truly will spell disaster for him and his party.

I was just looking over your riding by riding projections. And I got to thinking I wonder how many swing riding there are in Canada. Similar to the concept of a swing state in the US Presidential elections. That depending on the year who it could go either direction.

I guess you probably covered that during your G&M writing awhile back with each party getting broken down on its ridings that were solid, safe, questionable etc. (Sorry I don't remember all of the classifications that you used.)

Are there any ridings that have never changed parties? And are the ridings that have continually changed rigdings.

DL said: "I think a more consistent pattern in canadian elections is that which ever party is the incumbent party tends to lose ground during the campaign - and since the Liberals have usually been the incumbent party - they are the ones who usually go down."

The trend is pretty robust, the Liberals generally have done worse, regardless of whether they're in office or not (in fact, they've only done better than pre-writ polling twice, once in 1974, when Trudeau ran the campaign of a lifetime, and in 1993, when Chretien benefited from the collapse of the Tories). The fell in '62, '63, '80, '88, '08 when they were in opposition (and only went up in '93).

The Tory trend is less robust so that, while on average they do better, there's more variation around zero than there is for the grits. Still, heretofore at least, their doesn't seem to be an incumbency bias. Their worst performance, obviously, was 1993, when they were in power, but the next worse performance was in '79, when they were in opposition.

Of course, as they say in the fund business, past performance is no indicator of future performance. If the Tories have become the new "default" party for Canadian voters I could see that trend reversing. Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be a good development for the Grits.

Perhaps you should take a look at last weekends CARP poll which is a big part of the CPC core.

***

A weekend CARP Poll™ of over 2,000 CARP members demonstrates a clear break from their traditional support for the Conservatives as a direct result of the government’s response to the Speaker’s contempt rulings.

I agree that the Sun has taken a hard tack as of late. I'd say they are now the Star of the right. That's OK, if that's what you're looking for.

The NP was taking issue with the government long before they changed management. I've always found the editorial board to be fair-minded. It's not a new development, and I haven't noticed a significant change in their tone.

As for "attacking Harper... to establish credibility", I don't think you fully apreciate that these "attacks" are based on principle, not on whims.

An important part of having political character, is being able to see (and admit) when your party is doing something wrong.

I'm curious (as always) on your feelings about the CAP ads. Is the timing suspect? Is this a good use of taxpayer funds? What would you think if the Liberals did the same? (which they basically have in the past)

IMO it's just as important for supporters of a party to hold them to account when in power, as it is for the opposition. Otherwise you end up with corruption and rot, running unchecked from the inside.

I for one say thank goodness for people like Coyne, and Black. If every conservative thinker simply toed-the-line, we would be like a bunch of sheep, following without question.

Ethical lapses, like using federal funds for these CAP ads at the same time as party ads, is a good place to start being critical. You could give it a try. You might like it.

If not, there is always damage control to be done when these things come up. I'm not really into that myself... but to each his own.

I've seen an awful lot of self-promotion in these ads. Let's just say I didn't think much of running them, while running party ads at the same time. That crosses the line for my taste; as it looks like taking a free ad ride, in the Superbowl and Oscars no less, on the public dime.

I think it's well worth griping about anyway. The optics are especially bad since "election fever" is in the air. (in some small circles anyway)

One problem the Conservatives have on the french/english double-talk about the arena, is that the Tory Quebec cacus dressing up in Nordique jeresys translates clearly in both languages.

That's not my only problem I have with doing that either.

I'm used to bitching about Liberals promising different things in french, and english Canada. If I think the CPC should be doing the same, I'd have to shut up about the hypocricy involved in that stategy.

I see nothing wrong with the Tory caucus in Quebec promising they'll fight for something and the Tory caucus in Alberta promising they'll fight against the very same thing.

I was glad Harper didn't come out against the arena straight away.

Quebec MPs clearly supported it.

Let them have their say, let them argue their case, and then let caucus make a decision once all the facts are in.

An open government where everybody's voice is heard is far, far better than the one size fits all ideological approach you're suggesting.

(BTW the Quebec MPs are still promising back door arena funding in the form of the urban revitalization component of the arena plan - ie. they'll pump money into road, sewer, electrical, parks surrounding the arena.)

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.